Wednesday, August 2, 2017

BARRIE ONTARIO CANADA - MORE PIT BULL DRAMA...RESPONSIBLE PIT OWNER WHO "USUALLY WALKS AROUND THE CITY WITH HER PIT WEARING A MUZZLE" SEEMED RELIEVED TO HAVE OFFICERS FIRE THE 7 SHOTS IT TOOK TO STOP HER ADOPTED PIT FROM ATTACKING HER

Barrie Police fatally shot a dog that was attacking its owner and refused commands to stop.

Police were called to the Steckley-Gooderham Funeral Home at 30 Worsley Street at 3:13 p.m. Saturday by a passerby who called 911 after hearing a woman screaming for help and saw the attack.

Police say the dog, who belonged to the victim, was repeatedly and viciously biting both of the woman's arms and not releasing to voice commands or diversions.

"When police arrived on scene the dog was still latched on to the victim and they were unable to get the dog off. The owner was unable to get the dog off either so it was the only option that we had," said Barrie Police Const. Nicole Rodgers.

Police were unable to subdue the dog and as a result multiple shots were fired, police said.

"She (the victim) was conversing with the officer. I don't think she was shocked by the outcome of it and I think she was very grateful because at that point she herself knew that was the only way the attack was going to stop," said Rodgers.

The dog appears to be A PIT BULL OR BULL DOG OR A MIX, according to police, and the owner told them it was a rescue and she wasn't sure if it was rescued from a fighting or an abusive background. "The owner had alluded to the fact that there was some aggression issues before that," Rodgers said.

Mary Fletcher Harris was walking by and witnessed the entire incident.

"It was horrific. I've never seen anything like that in my life," said Fletcher Harris, still shaken several hours later.

Fletcher Harris was walking across the parking lot and saw a police car come racing up Clapperton St. with its lights on. The cruiser made a hard left into the funeral home parking lot which Fletcher Harris says was empty of vehicles.

"When I saw it (the cruiser) go in I could see a dog behind one of those ornamental pillars and it looked like it was thrashing. My first thought it was two dogs fighting. The police immediately exited their SUV and an officer immediately drew his weapon and fired. I don't know whether he fired first at the dog or just away from the dog to frighten it off the woman," Fletcher Harris recounted.

"Then the dog started to run down the sidewalk and the officer fired, could be four, five times at it. It fell but it wouldn't stop. It tried to get up so I turned my head because I knew they were going to finish the dog off. There was a couple more shots, maybe seven in total and the dog stopped moving."

Police say the dog quickly succumbed to its injuries on scene.

Due to injuries received from the dog attack, the woman was rushed to Royal Victoria Regional Health Centre with serious, non-life threatening injuries.

"They stood her up after a while and walked her to the gurney so she wasn't needing to be carried. I didn't see any blood on her or the dog or the ground," Fletcher Harris said.

Fletcher Harris works downtown and says the victim and her pet are regular fixtures.

"She'll be upset about her dog, I'm sure. I've seen her around and I think that's her companion. Probably for safety reasons but I guess for some unknown reason he turned on her," she said.

"She keeps it muzzled all the time so I guess it's a little dangerous. I don't know why it would've attacked her but it did."

Fletcher Harris was rattled by the incident. "I've never seen police draw weapons and fire. I've never heard gunshots before so it was pretty wild scene down there."

But she says she fully understands why police shot the animal. "I think they had to do that. For sure."

Rodgers said police had no choice. "This was the only option. It's unfortunate but at the end of the day it's about the safety of everyone else and the officers," Rodgers said.

THE CODE OF ALABAMA - 1975

Title: 6 CIVIL PRACTICE

Section 6-5-120

Defined.

A "nuisance" is anything that works hurt, inconvenience or damage to another. The fact that the act done may otherwise be lawful does not keep it from being a nuisance. The inconvenience complained of must not be fanciful or such as would affect only one of a fastidious taste, but it should be such as would affect an ordinary reasonable man.

(Code 1907, §5193; Code 1923, §9271; Code 1940, T. 7, §1081

Section 6-5-121

_____________________

Distinction between public and private nuisances; right of action generally.

Nuisances are either public or private. A public nuisance is one which damages all persons who come within the sphere of its operation, though it may vary in its effects on individuals. A private nuisance is one limited in its injurious effects to one or a few individuals. Generally, a public nuisance gives no right of action to any individual, but must be abated by a process instituted in the name of the state. A private nuisance gives a right of action to the person injured.

Use of force in defense of a person.

(a) A person is justified in using physical force upon another person in order to defend himself or herself or a third person from what he or she reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force by that other person, and he or she may use a degree of force which he or she reasonably believes to be necessary for the purpose. A person may use deadly physical force, and is legally presumed to be justified in using deadly physical force in self-defense or the defense of another person pursuant to subdivision (4), if the person reasonably believes that another person is:

(1) Using or about to use unlawful deadly physical force.

(2) Using or about to use physical force against an occupant of a dwelling while committing or attempting to commit a burglary of such dwelling.

(3) Committing or about to commit a kidnapping in any degree, assault in the first or second degree, burglary in any degree, robbery in any degree, forcible rape, or forcible sodomy.

(4) In the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or has unlawfully and forcefully entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or federally licensed nuclear power facility, or is in the process of sabotaging or attempting to sabotage a federally licensed nuclear power facility, or is attempting to remove, or has forcefully removed, a person against his or her will from any dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle when the person has a legal right to be there, and provided that the person using the deadly physical force knows or has reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act is occurring. The legal presumption that a person using deadly physical force is justified to do so pursuant to this subdivision does not apply if:

a. The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner or lessee, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person;

b. The person sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used;

c. The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or

d. The person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer acting in the performance of his or her official duties.

(b) A person who is justified under subsection (a) in using physical force, including deadly physical force, and who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and is in any place where he or she has the right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground.

(c) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a), a person is not justified in using physical force if:

(1) With intent to cause physical injury or death to another person, he or she provoked the use of unlawful physical force by such other person.

(2) He or she was the initial aggressor, except that his or her use of physical force upon another person under the circumstances is justifiable if he or she withdraws from the encounter and effectively communicates to the other person his or her intent to do so, but the latter person nevertheless continues or threatens the use of unlawful physical force.

(3) The physical force involved was the product of a combat by agreement not specifically authorized by law.

(d) A person who uses force, including deadly physical force, as justified and permitted in this section is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the force was determined to be unlawful.

(e) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force described in subsection (a), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force used was unlawful.